LAWS(P&H)-2002-11-41

SHIV CHARAN Vs. SUKH RAM

Decided On November 14, 2002
SHIV CHARAN Appellant
V/S
SUKH RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are in second appeal in this Court. They are aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated April 8, 1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent Sukh Ram (hereinafter called as 'plaintiff') was decreed, and the judgment and decree dated May 29, 1981, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad has been reversed. Relevant facts.

(2.) A suit for declaration, and in the alternative for possession, was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that one Het Lal s/o Nathwa was the owner in possession of the land to the extent of share detailed in the plaint. As per the plaintiff, the aforesaid Het Lal gifted away his share in the said land to the plaintiff vide two registered gift deeds dated March 30, 1970 and since the aforesaid date, the plaintiff claimed that he was the lawful owner of the land which was under the joint ownership of the plaintiff and Bodi-defendant No. 1 in equal shares. However, in the revenue record, the names of defendants No. 2 and 3 namely, Shiv Charan and Ganga Lal wrongly appeared as pattedars in the column of cultivation, inspite of the fact that Het Lal had got a lease deed set aside on July 19, 1968, which was executed by him in their favour. The plaintiff claimed that Het Lal gifted his entire immovable property to him including the residential house, Gait and Nohra. After the cancellation of the lease deed, defendants No. 2 and 3 had no possessory title nor had any tenancy rights in their favour and the entries qua them in the revenue record showing them as Pattedars/tenants at will were incorrect and liable to be corrected. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to physical possession of the land after the execution of the gift deeds by Het Lal in his favour. It was further stated that on the basis of the wrong and unlawful entries in the revenue records, the defendants were unlawfully interfering into the lawful possession of the plaintiffs, and in any case, had no legal right to claim any right in the land.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court held the plaintiff to be the owner of the land in dispute. However, the rest of the pleas raised by the plaintiff were negatived i.e. it was held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and also held that the entries in the revenue record showing the defendants as Pattedars are unassailable and could not be corrected. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.